Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutRES-CC-1980-09RESOLUTION NO. 9 -80 The Moab City Council, having passed Resolu- tion 6-80 on the 24th day of July, A.D. 1980, and having heard the report of the City Administrator at an Executive Meeting on the evening of August 14, 1980, and having considered the latter report and other matters, deem it appropriate to make a statement to the citizens of the City of Moab with respect to compliance had in accordance with the requirements of Resolu- tion 6-80. Accordingly, the following report was con- sidered by Council and by Resolution unanimously made and passed, duly adopted as the report of the Council to the public with respect to the matters raised in Resolution 6-80, and with respect to action taken by the Council simultaneously with the adoption of this report. REPORT The City Council finds that as a result of investigations required and directed by the Council to be per- formed in its Resolution 6-80, many matters which had been called to the Council's attention as requiring investigation were well-founded. Without disclosing confidences or per- sonnel actions which are appropriately kept confidential, the Council reports that it has reviewed the seven items of Resolu- tion 6-80 and with respect thereto has taken the following actions: 1. Administrative Matters: Implicit in the action taken in sub -paragraph "A" of item "1" in Resolution 6-80 WaS a f i nr7 i n,r 1-,17 • chastise the Council and to criticize their action, making, at that time, in a radio broadcast interview, a public statement which, in the course of the subsequent investigation, proved to be untrue. The Chief was admonished in the Resolu- tion 6-80 to support the Council actions as a member of the administration of City government, even when he had personally disagreed with such actions. His conduct, therefore, was grossly inconsistent with his role as Department Head in City government, and in contradiction of specific instructions given to him. With respect to sub -paragraphs "B" and "C" of item "l" of Resolution 6-80, the Council has not had the oppor- tunity to evaluate the performance of the Chief of Police inasmuch as the criticisms directed therein pertained to ad- ministrative responsibilities at times in the future which have yet to come under review. 2. Professional Conduct: Item "2" of Resolu- tion 6-80 dealt with the maintenance of logs and the utiliza- tion of incident reports. The City Council is not satisfied with the mere addition of another form to satisfy the require- ment that detailed logs be kept of duty time by law enforce- ment officers. The broadly recognized police practice of keeping detailed daily logs hardly needs restatement. It was the desire of Council that this universal standard be applied in Moab. It was not uniformly required in the past and nothing in the present investigation indicates that steps have been taken to see that it is done in the future. The content of these logs is invaluable in refreshing an officer's memory on the witness stand and in preparation for court mat- ters, as well as in report writing. their regular future use must be confirmed by observation of the practice. 3. Police Department Policies and Procedures: The investigations pursuant to Resolution 6-80 reveal that in 1966 Rules and Regulations for the Department of Police were promulgated and approved by the City Council. No copies of those Rules and Regulations were known to any present member of the Council, all of whom were elected subsequent to the date of enactment of the Rules and Regulations. No copies of the Rules and Regulations have been found in the administra- tive offices of the City government. Indeed, the only known copy came to light during the period since the July 24th action of Council. It is incredible to Council that certain officers have spent considerable time on their own for the last nine months drafting proposed sets of Rules and Regula- tions without the apparent knowledge of the existence of the 1966 Regulations. With the extraordinary changes in law en- forcement, and especially defendants' rights since 1966, Coun- cil deems it imperative that the Rules and Regulations in existence in 1966 be reviewed and updated. For that purpose, a committee is established, to be chaired by Councilman Keith Peterson, and composed of the Chief of Police, the City Admin- istrator and the City Attorney. This committee will review and redraft the Regulations of 1966 and submit the revision to Council for appropriate action. 4. Training: In lieu of responding to the Council's specific instructions to establish a schedule of law enforcement training programs, the only report to the Council thus far has been to summarize the training experience of the officers on the force. This fails to reflect an intelli- 5. Report Made to City Council: With respect to the relationship to other departments, the report is blatantly in error, in the Council's opinion. Specific conduct by the Chief of Police since the Resolution 6-80 has further strained relationships with the Sheriff's Department rather than improve them. 6. Investigations: The items given the most atten- tion by the press and public appear to have been five specific invest- igations required of the Chief of Police pertaining to the conduct of the officers of his Department. The charges made, if true, would be of grave concern to the Council; however, weighing the charges in general with the other complaints of Council as reflected in Resolution 6-80, the investigations directed by item "6" were intended to have no greater priority, other than an earlier reporting date, than the remainder of the items in the Resolution 6-80. The report itself indicates as follows: A. That two officers on the force at the time Resolu- tion 6-80 was passed had previously been involved in the use or abuse of controlled substances. Appropriate disciplinary action is to be taken, as recommended by the Police Chief and approved by the Council; with respect to that one officer remaining on the force. With res- pect to the other officer, the matter is to be directed to the County Attorney. B. Ths use of vulgar or obscene language in certain instances by certain officers has been admitted. Disciplinary action recommended by the Chief of Police is deemed satisfactory by the Council. C. The Police Chief has been unable to document any specific incidences of excessive force used in arrest procedures. D. The Chief of Police is unable to determine specific incidences of harrassment of certain members of the community by law enforcement officers. Such incidences as have come to the attention the Councils determination that any violation of an informants confi- dence shall be cause for immediate dismissal. The officer involved is no longer on the force. 7. Special Programs: Inasmuch as no specific pro- grams in law enforcement, such as park patrols, bar checks for minors, and curfew enforcement and others, have been requested with a suffi- cient passage of time to observe the implementation of such special programs, the Council reserves comment upon the effectiveness of such special programs. CONCLUSIONS The City Council feels that the action taken by it on July 24, 1980, was well-founded. The Council is not satisfied with the response required by Resolution 6-80, but accepts the efforts made to date as having been made in good faith. The Council is of the opinion that sufficient of the administrative deficiencies and pro- fessional conduct abuses cited in the Resolution 6-80 have been corrected that the Police Department is removed from its probationary status. However, Council expresses great concern about the performance of certain administrative duties by the Chief of the Police Department. Furthermore, the Council is extremely dis- pleased at the action of the Chief of Police in his public statement of July 25, 1980. ACTIONS TAKEN Acknowledging, however, that the Chief of Police has admitted his actions of July 25 to have been improper and ill-ad- Council in the correction of those deificiencies still remaining with respect to the directions of Resolution 6-80 and the correction of the deficiencies noted in this report. Furthermore, Council has determined that satisfactory investigations of complaints about Police behavior must of necessity be conducted outside of the purview of the Police Department and accord- ingly Council establishes the procedure that citizens having complaints about Police Department conduct should address those complaints to the Mayor or Councilperson of their choice, or to the City Administrator. Complaints made to the Mayor and to a Councilperson shall be re- layed to the City Administrator, omitting in detail only the name of the complainant. The City Administrator shall then investigate the complaint and report his findings to the citizen who first contacted him or to the Councilperson who reported the complaint to him. In the latter case, the Councilperson shall relate the disposition of the investigation to the complaining citizen, who may thereafter allow his name to be used for further investigations, which may lead to dis- ciplinary action, but the release of the citizen's name shall only be done with the citizen's consent. Rules and Regulations to be pro- mulgated respecting the Department of Police shall provide further details for such complaint procedure. During the period of probation of the Chief of Police as stated, the City Administrator shall continue to closely monitor the progress of the Chief of the Police Department and the Department itself in effecting compliance of this and the Resolution 6-80 of July 24. The monitoring of the Police Department by the City Ad- ministrator shall continue thereafter as a regular and routine as- pect of City Administration. DONE IN COUNCIL this 1�1�� day of August. A. D. 1980.